For the third time in succession, Pakistan goes to the polls on July 25 to elect both the new parliament and the four provincial assemblies of Punjab, Sind, Balochistan, and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa.
Considering that for more than half its life as an independent nation, Pakistan has been under four military dictators -- Ayub (1958-69); Yahya (1969-71); Zia (1977-88); Musharraf (1999-2008) -- and that as many as 15 prime ministers have failed to complete their term, owing to military or judicial intervention, does the fact that two democratically elected governments -- Pakistan People’s Party (2008-13) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (2013- 18) -- have both completed their terms, respected election outcomes, and peacefully transferred power indicate that the Pakistan polity has finally shifted structurally, from direct military rule to governance through parliamentary democracy?
Before attempting to answer that fundamental question, let us take stock of how the current elections are being contested.
The two principal rivals are Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI or Pakistan Justice Movement) and the Sharif family’s PML-N (Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz).
In the last 2013 elections, PML-N secured 166 seats in the National Assembly and the PTI only 35, with Bhutto-Zardari’s incumbent PPP slashed to a mere 15 seats and reduced from national to provincial status in Sind alone. Therefore, it should be a cinch for PML-N to again clinch the coming election.
But, as oft, nothing is as it appears in Pakistan. There are many factors that might yet result in an upset defeat for PTI/PML-N.
Nawaz Sharif and Maryam, his daughter and political heir, have been disqualified by the Pakistan Supreme Court from holding high office now and forevermore. So PML-N will be going into these elections without the face that gained them millions of voters.
There is also an almost unbelievable proliferation of over 160 independent candidates, all allotted the same election symbol, the “jeep,” first claimed by a Nawaz defector, Chaudhry Nisar, a suspected army stalking horse, that might cause many, perhaps most, voters to regard these independents as another full-fledged political party contesting the polls.
Several Pakistani and other commentators believe this to be a deliberate ploy of the army to so confuse the electorate that no clear outcome emerges, thus opening the way to another long spell of military rule.
If, in fact, that is the armed forces’ intention, they are making the same mistake as Yahya Khan -- who let the December 1970 election play out relatively free and fair, in the expectation that he would be able to retain the reins of power in the army’s hands, but was, in actual fact, faced with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s stunning victory that eventually resulted in the break-up of Pakistan.
It is most unlikely that the “jeep” symbol will win this election, but several independent winners might find themselves wooed with the usual inducements to extend their support to the principals.
Another factor is what Nawaz Sharif’s daughter, Maryam, has cleverly called the “khalai makhlooki” (the invisible forces), and exiting minister Daniyal Aziz the forces “behind the scenes, under the covers, below the radar,” their wary euphemism for the army and its intelligence wing, the notorious ISI.
What perplexes me about such speculation is why the army should resort to such devious and unpredictable ways of continuing to hold its own on whichever government comes into being after these elections in Pakistan.
It is not just the guns and tanks and aircraft in its ever-expanding armoury that explains the dominance of the armed forces in Pakistan’s polity, but also that despite not being in the electoral fray, the army is quite simply the largest nation-wide political formation in the country.
If the army wishes to take over the overt governance of the nation, no government would be able to resist that.
Yet, the chiefs of staff resisted the temptation of taking over when the Panama Papers indicting Nawaz and his family were released, principally because they know the people of Pakistan are totally fed up with repeated military dictatorships.
The army realizes that to keep the lid on the kettle, and close to 70% of the nation’s budget in their hands, they can maintain the facade of a democratically-elected parliamentary democracy to give the people a sense of participation in governance while holding the Sword of Damocles over duly elected leaders of whatever hue.
There is, therefore, no compulsive need for the army to resort to elaborate electoral manipulation to remain the dominant voice in decision-making on issues, especially of defense and national security, where the army wishes to be the final determinant of policy, tactics, and strategy without getting into messy matters of domestic administration.
Thus, none of the doomsday scenarios being etched is likely to occur. Neither will Hafiz Saeed or his brothers-in-hate become Pakistan’s PM; nor will the military nullify the election process.
Whether Imran wins or the PML-N, nothing much will change for the people of Pakistan and even less for India-Pakistan relations.
Mani Shankar Aiyar is former Congress MP, Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. This article first appeared on NDTV.
